Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
One scenario that I find very interesting is what would have happened if WW1 had errupted as we know it, but ended with the Christmas truth of 1914. Back then most of the soldiers along the western front put down their guns and met between the front lines to celebrate christmas together while the military high comman was foaming with rage over this insubordination. If at that time soldiers on both sides had not returned to business (butchery) as usual, but if they had refused to continue the killing and thus forced their governments to make peace I think it might have been one of mankinds most glorious moments. The lasting impression of such a victory of humanity over human madness might indeed have caused a more lasting peace in Europe than in case WW1 had never started. It might have served as an example to soldiers in other times and different places too making further wars more difficult to conduct if the governments couldn't convince the people of the necessity of killing each other. The power of the people over their governments might have been increased by such a peace enforced upon their governments by the people.That is very interesting, wonder what would happen if that did happen. Also, I saw War Horse, the play, a while ago, and there is this scene where a German and British soldier find the horse in the battlefield after a battle, and instead of fighting, they play heads or tails. After the british win, he and the german soldier shake hands, which I find to be a very symbolic moment.
even if america had a strong navy at the time britians navy was the strongest in the world. hads they intervened the blocade that was successful in cutting off southern importa would have been destroyed, however we cannot simplify history. you change one thing, many other things change as well. If you chsnge X (Foriegn intervention) than Y changes (conditions in the wart) and possibly Z as well (wars outcome).to be a proper student of history you must keep in mind the context o f the time, and not let later events color or shape your thinking. i forgive you Chomper , for your prior comment, you have a passion for history, which shows in your questions. and that is good..Thanks.
The thing about the Napoleonic Wars is that they only lost the last one.,I know, but thats when I said allies.
It is true that their track record is not great. But they did assist the American Revolutionary War, mainly to get back at Britain for the French & Indian Wars. They also had a much better success rate in naval warfare, as Jon Stewart's America: The Book parodies.
No offense meant Chomper98, but there is kind of a general tone emphasizing the strength of America in most of your history posts that may influence your perception of historical situations. No doubt America had become a major power by the time of the US civil war, but it was throughout the so called Gilded Age that it really became the number one in terms of industrial capacity (according to my figures the American industrial capacity did not exceed that of Great Britain, France, or the combination of (yet to be unified) German states in 1860 while it exceeded that of all three nations combined in 1900).I know you guys are right in alot of ways, but America still had a strong army and navy, it also outnumbered the british 5-1 in North America. Also, no offense taken, but just because it wasn't as strong as it is today, it was still strong, it also had an experienced army, and also, I made this because I saw this on a history thread, and didn't consider its authenticity, so I am sorry that I was rude.
What you miss out is that it was still "Britania Rules the waves" throughout most of the Victorian Age. The British Navy could have blocked any naval landing in France, but such a naval landing could not have taken place to begin with because the capacity of the Russian navy did not suffice to allow for a landing in enemy territory (a landing by the way that was difficult enough to supply and support just over the British channel but that would have been all but lost with a naval supply route all across the northern and baltic sea). Russia's Colonies in North America (Alaska) were utterly dependent on the supplies provided by foreign traders (mostly British and American), since the own naval capacities didn't allow to support them or even to enforce a Russian ukase (an order by the Tzar that is) of 1821 which tried to prohibit foreign ships in the waters of the Russian colonies (well aware that Russian navy was unable to wage a war with the British at the time). Contrary to what you assume the British Army did have well experienced troups in the 1860s (more at least than America had). Since the Napoleonic Wars Great Britain had fought a number of Wars. These included colonial wars in India and China, but also the Crimean War against Russia in which France, Britain and the Ottoman Emprie had defeated Russia.
The intervention of European powers was the only realistic chance the Confederacy had to in fact gain independence. It is often overlooked however that Great Britain relied not only on Southern Cotton (which could easily be replaced by cotton from Egypt and India) but also on large grain and meat imports from the northern states which made Great Britain more reluctant to intervene than France (Napoleon III. however would not intervene without England). Following the Trent affair (the arrest of two confederate diplomats on board of the British post ship Trent which had been stopped by the USS San Jacinto) in November 1861 there was no more situation in which Britain came as close to intervening and after the passing of the Emancipation proclamation there was nothing short of an American attack on Great Britain that would have dragged Britain into the war. Assuming an intervention however, this in any case would have lifted the blockade of southern ports, since the US navy could not have put up a fight against the British navy while spread out all along the coast. The northern states would have found themselves in a two front war. British troops from Canada in the north (there were some significant troops there even prior to any further transport of troos accross the Atlantic) and the southern troops along the front of the war as we know it.
As for Russia, she demonstrated her support for the North by a fleet visit in 1863, but Russia was not eager to get involved into a large scale war at the time. The memory of having defeated in the Crimean War just a decade earlier was still there and moreover Russia had plenty of inner affairs to deal with. The emancipation of the Russian serfs in 1861 had been conducted mostly because otherwise a large scale revolt would have been likely. Moreover Russia was in a kind of constant state of war in the 1860s and early 70s against Khanates in inner Assia on the one hand and against revolts in occupied regions in eastern Europe (Poland in particular) on the other hand. Russia therefore was not eager at the time to get involved into any of the full scale wars fought in Europe at the time, much less in one fought as far away as America. It was for good reason that Russia sold her colonies to America so cheaply in 1867 for in any further looming conflict with Great Britain (conflicts which did not ultimately errupt) Russia would not have been able to hold on to faraway oversea territories.
Do you have an MSN account to chat by the way Chomper98? I think we could have many enjoyable history chats on MSN and there are several other GOF members interested in history on MSN who might join us
And to Malte: I don't have a MSN account, but Yahoo. Maybe I'll make one, any one have any interesting topics for history discussion?
Chomper your ideas are completely incoirrect. Remember that during the 1860s transportation was not what it is now. There were no planes, and boats took months to cross the atlantic. there was no panama canal to cut short the trip from the Pacific, russia would literally have to send forces all the way round South america an effort that would have taken many months if not years. Besuides Lincioln worked very hard to see that there was no foreign involvement at all, the confederacy was trying very hard to gain international diplomsatic recognition as its own country, lincoln stressed repeatedly that this was an internal matter and that other countries should butt out.. while Russia was friendly to the north, in the sense that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Russia was rather isolated and was in no position to help us, even if they wanted to. There would have been no 'walkover for the US, remember that the country was very bitterly divided, its the reason why the Pierce administrations atte,pts to buy Cuba from Spain wennt nowhere, the north did not want another slave state , or several, added to the ledger.in the same way the South didnt want the north to grab canada. since neither was willing to compromise neither side got the expansion it wanted. Lincoln in short told FRance Spain and britrian to mind thier own business and eventually got them to not recognize the confederacy, which was the only way for the South to hold out against the greater strength and size of the North.When I said if Russia intervened, it was only because if Britain or France intervened. I know Russia had a long way to travel, but the Union still had a large, and experienced army and navy, which could have held off a British invasion, and did you read the "IF"? IF! It was if! Did you even read the title? IF! Did you miss that? I am sorry if that seemed to be with malicious intent, but Russia still could have invaded France via crossing through the Baltic Sea and landing in France and Britain, it was still a world power, and helped keep countries out of the war by sending two naval squadrons to American waters. But still, if Britain and France entered, Russia would have stepped in. Yes, transportation was slow, but they still could have helped America by attacking Britain and France in Europe if they entered. I know my history, and I know that Lincoln tried to keep other countries out of the war, but still, it may have gotten ugly if Britain and France recognized the Confederacy. Britain also experienced very few wars since Napoleon, so it would also have experience issues. It would also take months for Britain to send the necessary troops to Canada to intervene, and there were only 20,000 regular troops in Canada and 67,000 militia, so America would still crush Britain in Canada.
Dude, this is one of my biggest obsessions, both the documentary and the cartoon! I have tons of fanart and fanfiction about the Future is Wild, plus two different books and the entire DVD set!! And I've watched every single episode of the TV show!! *spazzes out and dies*Your welcome! I loved this show ever since it came out. I might even write a story where a certain foursome of Spitfire beetles and a falconffly meet the gang, and Chomper is about to learn that some bugs bite, or sting, back.
The Falconfly is my all-time favorite critter, especially in the cartoon! I also love the Deathgleaner bat! Plus, the Terabytes are friggin' adorable in the cartoon show, with all their chirpings!
Now look what ya did, Chomper98! You've gone and made a topic I'll never be able to get away from!Thank you so much!
I've some of the cartoon show. And I've seen all of the documentary. I liked it. My fav animals are probably the carakiller, sharkopath, and snowstalker.Yeah, they were awesome, aside from the Sharkopath, the Falcon Fly was my favorite, if Chomper found one, then it would not end well, for either, Chomper would finally meet a bug thats to much to handle.
